Tuesday, March 31, 2009
What you will learn by the end of the week
Some initial research into an annotated bibliography that I have to complete has yielded some fairly interesting insights into Authority files and controlled vocabulary. Why this topic fascinates me so much in beyond me, but for some reason I can't get enough of the organization (which itself is funny because I am not organized).
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
I was going to give you the whole thing, but the first part is really boring. So I'll give you the more interesting section.
The difference between OPACs and the online search engine Google has a lot to do with who is doing the cataloging. With the OPAC, the cataloging, cross-referencing, and other important parts of the bibliographic record are all added manually by a cataloger. It’s a time consuming and meticulous process that ensures that a majority of what is asked of the OPAC will come back with a response, even if it’s one that tells the user to look somewhere else or rephrase the query. According to the article “How does Google collect and rank results,” the cataloging is mostly done by “spiders” or computer programs that troll the web, asking servers to give information about the websites they are hosting. These spiders then use the websites they have and catalog the pages via certain words. The article gives the example of civil and war. Of 100 documents or pages, perhaps thirteen have the word civil in them, another 24 have the word war in them and only 8 have both the words civil and war within the document. Of all 100 of those documents, the 8 that have the words civil and war in them are the most relevant. Google also uses a program called PageRank that looks at all of the indexed sites and further ranks the pages by looking at where the query words come up within the site and how many times the query term shows up. For example, if Jungle Cats is the search topic, a website with the term Jungle Cats in the title of the website is probably more relevant than one that only says Jungle Cats once. It also assigns rank by what is hyperlinked and to the website and from where. For instance, if Cnn.com links to an article or website about tax returns, it would be more relevant than if it weren’t’ linked at all or even if a similar site were linked to from three unknown sites.
The other HUGE difference between Google and the OPAC is simply a numbers game. When a user looks for an article or a book on the Midland OPAC the most returns that might ever be dealt with maybe only number in the thousands, and that would be going for a very general category, like music, or an entire Dewey section. Google will search for a refined topic like heart disease in Thailand and return results numbering in the millions. One caveat to the millions of hits is that some will only show up because the word “heart” or “disease” will be in the document. Google also returns all of these hits within a matter of seconds. The article explains that Google cut the time down by dividing the index created by the spider bots to many computers. Instead of the user looking through one large database of information, the search engine will search through many smaller ones. Then all of the machines together give the results for the query.
Finally, Google does not rely on controlled vocabulary for its searches. Whereas an OPAC will have Library of Congress subject headings and an authority file with which to find author, series, and title placement, Google simply compiles search terms into a database. While Google’s method makes it easier for users to find their topics, it also opens up a large amount of unnecessary hits to a query. If a user were to search Google for heart attack, any document having “heart” or “attack” would eventually come up in the results. On the other hand, myocardial infarction is the LOC subject heading. Any document with that search phrase as well as a cross reference to documents including the words “heart attack” but not returns with just “heart” or “attack.” Controlled vocabulary allows users to make better searches, but it requires work on the part of the user to actively use the controlled vocabulary. That is the trade of with Google, ease at the expense of relevance.
Google is a remarkable tool to use for research. It makes searching the web easy and fast for the every day user. It makes quick work of the vast information available on the internet and returns queries to the user within seconds. The library OPAC, on the other hand, is a smaller database of information, but controlled vocabulary, authority files, and for the most part verifiable information are available in it. Neither OPAC nor Google is better than the other, but each can give a different piece of the search query pie to users
The difference between OPACs and the online search engine Google has a lot to do with who is doing the cataloging. With the OPAC, the cataloging, cross-referencing, and other important parts of the bibliographic record are all added manually by a cataloger. It’s a time consuming and meticulous process that ensures that a majority of what is asked of the OPAC will come back with a response, even if it’s one that tells the user to look somewhere else or rephrase the query. According to the article “How does Google collect and rank results,” the cataloging is mostly done by “spiders” or computer programs that troll the web, asking servers to give information about the websites they are hosting. These spiders then use the websites they have and catalog the pages via certain words. The article gives the example of civil and war. Of 100 documents or pages, perhaps thirteen have the word civil in them, another 24 have the word war in them and only 8 have both the words civil and war within the document. Of all 100 of those documents, the 8 that have the words civil and war in them are the most relevant. Google also uses a program called PageRank that looks at all of the indexed sites and further ranks the pages by looking at where the query words come up within the site and how many times the query term shows up. For example, if Jungle Cats is the search topic, a website with the term Jungle Cats in the title of the website is probably more relevant than one that only says Jungle Cats once. It also assigns rank by what is hyperlinked and to the website and from where. For instance, if Cnn.com links to an article or website about tax returns, it would be more relevant than if it weren’t’ linked at all or even if a similar site were linked to from three unknown sites.
The other HUGE difference between Google and the OPAC is simply a numbers game. When a user looks for an article or a book on the Midland OPAC the most returns that might ever be dealt with maybe only number in the thousands, and that would be going for a very general category, like music, or an entire Dewey section. Google will search for a refined topic like heart disease in Thailand and return results numbering in the millions. One caveat to the millions of hits is that some will only show up because the word “heart” or “disease” will be in the document. Google also returns all of these hits within a matter of seconds. The article explains that Google cut the time down by dividing the index created by the spider bots to many computers. Instead of the user looking through one large database of information, the search engine will search through many smaller ones. Then all of the machines together give the results for the query.
Finally, Google does not rely on controlled vocabulary for its searches. Whereas an OPAC will have Library of Congress subject headings and an authority file with which to find author, series, and title placement, Google simply compiles search terms into a database. While Google’s method makes it easier for users to find their topics, it also opens up a large amount of unnecessary hits to a query. If a user were to search Google for heart attack, any document having “heart” or “attack” would eventually come up in the results. On the other hand, myocardial infarction is the LOC subject heading. Any document with that search phrase as well as a cross reference to documents including the words “heart attack” but not returns with just “heart” or “attack.” Controlled vocabulary allows users to make better searches, but it requires work on the part of the user to actively use the controlled vocabulary. That is the trade of with Google, ease at the expense of relevance.
Google is a remarkable tool to use for research. It makes searching the web easy and fast for the every day user. It makes quick work of the vast information available on the internet and returns queries to the user within seconds. The library OPAC, on the other hand, is a smaller database of information, but controlled vocabulary, authority files, and for the most part verifiable information are available in it. Neither OPAC nor Google is better than the other, but each can give a different piece of the search query pie to users
I was going to give you the whole thing, but the first part is really boring. So I'll give you the more interesting section.
The difference between OPACs and the online search engine Google has a lot to do with who is doing the cataloging. With the OPAC, the cataloging, cross-referencing, and other important parts of the bibliographic record are all added manually by a cataloger. It’s a time consuming and meticulous process that ensures that a majority of what is asked of the OPAC will come back with a response, even if it’s one that tells the user to look somewhere else or rephrase the query. According to the article “How does Google collect and rank results,” the cataloging is mostly done by “spiders” or computer programs that troll the web, asking servers to give information about the websites they are hosting. These spiders then use the websites they have and catalog the pages via certain words. The article gives the example of civil and war. Of 100 documents or pages, perhaps thirteen have the word civil in them, another 24 have the word war in them and only 8 have both the words civil and war within the document. Of all 100 of those documents, the 8 that have the words civil and war in them are the most relevant. Google also uses a program called PageRank that looks at all of the indexed sites and further ranks the pages by looking at where the query words come up within the site and how many times the query term shows up. For example, if Jungle Cats is the search topic, a website with the term Jungle Cats in the title of the website is probably more relevant than one that only says Jungle Cats once. It also assigns rank by what is hyperlinked and to the website and from where. For instance, if Cnn.com links to an article or website about tax returns, it would be more relevant than if it weren’t’ linked at all or even if a similar site were linked to from three unknown sites.
The other HUGE difference between Google and the OPAC is simply a numbers game. When a user looks for an article or a book on the Midland OPAC the most returns that might ever be dealt with maybe only number in the thousands, and that would be going for a very general category, like music, or an entire Dewey section. Google will search for a refined topic like heart disease in Thailand and return results numbering in the millions. One caveat to the millions of hits is that some will only show up because the word “heart” or “disease” will be in the document. Google also returns all of these hits within a matter of seconds. The article explains that Google cut the time down by dividing the index created by the spider bots to many computers. Instead of the user looking through one large database of information, the search engine will search through many smaller ones. Then all of the machines together give the results for the query.
Finally, Google does not rely on controlled vocabulary for its searches. Whereas an OPAC will have Library of Congress subject headings and an authority file with which to find author, series, and title placement, Google simply compiles search terms into a database. While Google’s method makes it easier for users to find their topics, it also opens up a large amount of unnecessary hits to a query. If a user were to search Google for heart attack, any document having “heart” or “attack” would eventually come up in the results. On the other hand, myocardial infarction is the LOC subject heading. Any document with that search phrase as well as a cross reference to documents including the words “heart attack” but not returns with just “heart” or “attack.” Controlled vocabulary allows users to make better searches, but it requires work on the part of the user to actively use the controlled vocabulary. That is the trade of with Google, ease at the expense of relevance.
Google is a remarkable tool to use for research. It makes searching the web easy and fast for the every day user. It makes quick work of the vast information available on the internet and returns queries to the user within seconds. The library OPAC, on the other hand, is a smaller database of information, but controlled vocabulary, authority files, and for the most part verifiable information are available in it. Neither OPAC nor Google is better than the other, but each can give a different piece of the search query pie to users
The difference between OPACs and the online search engine Google has a lot to do with who is doing the cataloging. With the OPAC, the cataloging, cross-referencing, and other important parts of the bibliographic record are all added manually by a cataloger. It’s a time consuming and meticulous process that ensures that a majority of what is asked of the OPAC will come back with a response, even if it’s one that tells the user to look somewhere else or rephrase the query. According to the article “How does Google collect and rank results,” the cataloging is mostly done by “spiders” or computer programs that troll the web, asking servers to give information about the websites they are hosting. These spiders then use the websites they have and catalog the pages via certain words. The article gives the example of civil and war. Of 100 documents or pages, perhaps thirteen have the word civil in them, another 24 have the word war in them and only 8 have both the words civil and war within the document. Of all 100 of those documents, the 8 that have the words civil and war in them are the most relevant. Google also uses a program called PageRank that looks at all of the indexed sites and further ranks the pages by looking at where the query words come up within the site and how many times the query term shows up. For example, if Jungle Cats is the search topic, a website with the term Jungle Cats in the title of the website is probably more relevant than one that only says Jungle Cats once. It also assigns rank by what is hyperlinked and to the website and from where. For instance, if Cnn.com links to an article or website about tax returns, it would be more relevant than if it weren’t’ linked at all or even if a similar site were linked to from three unknown sites.
The other HUGE difference between Google and the OPAC is simply a numbers game. When a user looks for an article or a book on the Midland OPAC the most returns that might ever be dealt with maybe only number in the thousands, and that would be going for a very general category, like music, or an entire Dewey section. Google will search for a refined topic like heart disease in Thailand and return results numbering in the millions. One caveat to the millions of hits is that some will only show up because the word “heart” or “disease” will be in the document. Google also returns all of these hits within a matter of seconds. The article explains that Google cut the time down by dividing the index created by the spider bots to many computers. Instead of the user looking through one large database of information, the search engine will search through many smaller ones. Then all of the machines together give the results for the query.
Finally, Google does not rely on controlled vocabulary for its searches. Whereas an OPAC will have Library of Congress subject headings and an authority file with which to find author, series, and title placement, Google simply compiles search terms into a database. While Google’s method makes it easier for users to find their topics, it also opens up a large amount of unnecessary hits to a query. If a user were to search Google for heart attack, any document having “heart” or “attack” would eventually come up in the results. On the other hand, myocardial infarction is the LOC subject heading. Any document with that search phrase as well as a cross reference to documents including the words “heart attack” but not returns with just “heart” or “attack.” Controlled vocabulary allows users to make better searches, but it requires work on the part of the user to actively use the controlled vocabulary. That is the trade of with Google, ease at the expense of relevance.
Google is a remarkable tool to use for research. It makes searching the web easy and fast for the every day user. It makes quick work of the vast information available on the internet and returns queries to the user within seconds. The library OPAC, on the other hand, is a smaller database of information, but controlled vocabulary, authority files, and for the most part verifiable information are available in it. Neither OPAC nor Google is better than the other, but each can give a different piece of the search query pie to users
Monday, March 23, 2009
Later tonight I will be putting up a paper comparing the Midland Lutheran College Library OPAC with the University of Nebraska-Omaha library OPAC. Then I will compare both of those Online Public Access Catalogs with Google. It's supposed to be 6 to 8 pages. I haven't started yet. I just don't feel like it at the moment. Thankfully it's all just showing examples of how the OPACs work and some explanation.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Books and Movies
Dear reader, if you are still the least bit interested in anything I have to say, then you are damned lucky I'm still writing. I come to you with the amazingness of movies based on books. Let's begin with the two coming out this week: Twilight and Quantum of Solace.
Now, mind you, Quantum of Solace is not a book, but the character of Bond was created in novels by Sir Ian Flemming. I don't know if there was anything remotely similar about the Bond from the books and the Bond from the movies, but I certainly do love what they've done with him since Casino Royale. This latest installment really knocks my socks off. Fan-fucking-tastic.
Now Twilight, on the other hand, is.....uh.....how do I put it nicely? I didn't read the books. I think i refuse to read them on the account that they are so popular with the kids these days. Now I think that as a librarian I should have an open mind about books and things, but what can i say? I'm a bad person. Don't waste your time on Twilight. It's too brooding and dark. Lots of sadness and pain. And a Shit Ending.
Now, mind you, Quantum of Solace is not a book, but the character of Bond was created in novels by Sir Ian Flemming. I don't know if there was anything remotely similar about the Bond from the books and the Bond from the movies, but I certainly do love what they've done with him since Casino Royale. This latest installment really knocks my socks off. Fan-fucking-tastic.
Now Twilight, on the other hand, is.....uh.....how do I put it nicely? I didn't read the books. I think i refuse to read them on the account that they are so popular with the kids these days. Now I think that as a librarian I should have an open mind about books and things, but what can i say? I'm a bad person. Don't waste your time on Twilight. It's too brooding and dark. Lots of sadness and pain. And a Shit Ending.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Library of Congress (LOC) keeps an Authority Record. By the way, this record is HUGE! It's basically the way the LOC keeps everything level for everyone. They have Authority records for Authors, Series, and Subjects. The have recently stopped making records for Series, but they continue to add subject headings all the time, to the tune of 2,000 to 4,000 entries a year. These headings are as simple as "Automobiles" to something as huge as "Mytocardial infartion" (heart attack). These headings keep everything together. If you are searching for a book in the catalog, the best thing you can do is look for the subject. If you want information on a topic, don't look for keywords because you won't get nearly as many results. Use the subject search and use controlled vocabulary. That means, think about what you want and then you type it in. This shit ain't no Google.
The best thing about using the subject heading search is that even if you aren't looking for the correct heading, the subject records regulary have similar entries. This means that if you look for heart attack in the subject field you'll be told to "see Mytocardial infartion." (Yes I know I've misspelled it twice. I don't want to take the time to look it up. DEAL!)
I learned this in the first two hours of class. The last four hours of class were not even close to interesting. I took the time to look for yarn on the internet, rebid on a phone I'm trying for on Ebay and chatted on gmail. It was a productive online day. I did not get on EW.com, which is a big step for me.Usually I waste whole hours on EW. It's just that amazing.
The best thing about using the subject heading search is that even if you aren't looking for the correct heading, the subject records regulary have similar entries. This means that if you look for heart attack in the subject field you'll be told to "see Mytocardial infartion." (Yes I know I've misspelled it twice. I don't want to take the time to look it up. DEAL!)
I learned this in the first two hours of class. The last four hours of class were not even close to interesting. I took the time to look for yarn on the internet, rebid on a phone I'm trying for on Ebay and chatted on gmail. It was a productive online day. I did not get on EW.com, which is a big step for me.Usually I waste whole hours on EW. It's just that amazing.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Today, I learned a lot about book censoring and how incredibly stupid it would be to allow parents to run the education system. Color me liberal, but some of the books they were disputing were AMAZING books. The Catcher in the Rye, for instance, is a great story for young adults to read because it truly describes the life. It's an honest look at life from the eyes of Holden Cauffield.
And while I agree that some of the books were probably not the most appropriate for the ages present, the websites I read went about it completely the wrong way. (you can see those sites here and here) The sites suggested that parents stop the books from being in the library because "it's your tax dollars at work." Meanwhile, the better solution would be to dialogue with your children on a regular basis about what you deem to be appropriate. How about ask them what they are reading in school? Or maybe get the book list for the year (it is possible, most teachers have all the books chosen by the start of the school year). Open dialogue with your child will only increase the understanding you have with your child and your child's understanding of what you deem appropriate. However, you have to face the fact that if your child wants to know something, he or she can readily find out about it through much easier ways than the school or public library.
Among the other things I have learned tonight are that Academic libraries define their sense of "place" by expanding into the digital arena. It is through the online areas that Academic libraries are growing their patrons and engaging their users. Meanwhile, Public libraries have to try and define their "space" through their actual physical setting. Public libraries often reflect their community through their interpretations of "space" by how they designate what areas of the library to be of more or less importance. Does the children's area grow because the population of young children has increased 20% in the last 10 years? Do we shrink the microfilm area because all the newspapers are now available online? Can we grow the computer access area because more and more people are coming in to look for jobs on the internet?
One last thing: I have three more books to catalog. It shouldn't be too hard. Here's hoping I can get it all done tonight.
And while I agree that some of the books were probably not the most appropriate for the ages present, the websites I read went about it completely the wrong way. (you can see those sites here and here) The sites suggested that parents stop the books from being in the library because "it's your tax dollars at work." Meanwhile, the better solution would be to dialogue with your children on a regular basis about what you deem to be appropriate. How about ask them what they are reading in school? Or maybe get the book list for the year (it is possible, most teachers have all the books chosen by the start of the school year). Open dialogue with your child will only increase the understanding you have with your child and your child's understanding of what you deem appropriate. However, you have to face the fact that if your child wants to know something, he or she can readily find out about it through much easier ways than the school or public library.
Among the other things I have learned tonight are that Academic libraries define their sense of "place" by expanding into the digital arena. It is through the online areas that Academic libraries are growing their patrons and engaging their users. Meanwhile, Public libraries have to try and define their "space" through their actual physical setting. Public libraries often reflect their community through their interpretations of "space" by how they designate what areas of the library to be of more or less importance. Does the children's area grow because the population of young children has increased 20% in the last 10 years? Do we shrink the microfilm area because all the newspapers are now available online? Can we grow the computer access area because more and more people are coming in to look for jobs on the internet?
One last thing: I have three more books to catalog. It shouldn't be too hard. Here's hoping I can get it all done tonight.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
This morning I work up puking.
That was at 4 am
I can only think that the Chicken tortilla soup I had for dinner had something to do with it. Probably the sour cream they drizzled on top. I hate sour cream. It's probably what did it.
The best part about my day of health was the part where I slept until 11. I haven't done that on a weekday in FOREVER! Not since college in any case. It was fantastic. The downside to not going to work is twofold. First, there's 8 hours of work I'm just out. Second, when I left my house today to go work the library I found out that the temperature was like.....15 degrees out! Cold as fuck and no warning. and there was snow on the ground. WTF!
Now i'm just chilling out at the library, trying to do good work.
I hate daylight savings time.
That was at 4 am
I can only think that the Chicken tortilla soup I had for dinner had something to do with it. Probably the sour cream they drizzled on top. I hate sour cream. It's probably what did it.
The best part about my day of health was the part where I slept until 11. I haven't done that on a weekday in FOREVER! Not since college in any case. It was fantastic. The downside to not going to work is twofold. First, there's 8 hours of work I'm just out. Second, when I left my house today to go work the library I found out that the temperature was like.....15 degrees out! Cold as fuck and no warning. and there was snow on the ground. WTF!
Now i'm just chilling out at the library, trying to do good work.
I hate daylight savings time.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The bright side: I don't have any homework stuff to worry about this week.
The down side: I'm super bored.
I'm updating right now from Caffeine Dreams, the best coffee shop in Omaha. It's better than Crane because it fosters a more hipster atmostphere. Indie music and coffee matrons wearing low cut "show my boobie" numbers. Not a bad set up. The only thing I really hate about this coffee shop is all the hipsters. What the hell are they thinking? I would love to see a picture of a hipster from ten years ago. Were they the kids that were all in love with Jay-Z and Eminem? And where do they expect to go in life with holes in their ears as big as a pop can? And don't even get me started on skinny jeans. God in HEAVEN!
I have begun to pay back the greek organization that I had the pleasure of being associated with in College. it's only about two years overdue, but what can I say....I'm slow.
I think the best two thing about this week both happened on Friday. First, I went back to Midland to talk to Dr. Staley's Cultural Minorities class about living with "the gay" and what that means in NE and at Midland and in Fremont. It was a really enjoyable class. There was good questions from both the professor and the students, and the dialog was both witty and informative. I really wish I could do it more ofter. Truthfully. I think I broke a lot of barriers today. There are some people that don't understand that being gay and being a social pariah are not mutually exclusive. I live my life the best way I know how and I do it with grace and dignity and a lot of humor. (I sound like I'm living with AIDS or something, jeez). The point is, I like being gay. I like being who I am. I like making asshole straight boys feel uncomfortable and dirty.
Also on Friday, I got another tattoo. It's a really nice compass rose on my chest.
So what do we think? I think it's fantastic. I love the fact that it turned out so bad ass. I was a little wary, but it all turned into a nice experience. And Jamie and Jay were there to witness. Then we went and had shots and listened to the rain fall and the thunder rumble. It was a beautiful night on Friday. I wish I had a date so I could make an excuse to make out. Meh.
This whole post is terribly unlibrarian like and I apologize for that.You get something from the field soon. I promise.
The down side: I'm super bored.
I'm updating right now from Caffeine Dreams, the best coffee shop in Omaha. It's better than Crane because it fosters a more hipster atmostphere. Indie music and coffee matrons wearing low cut "show my boobie" numbers. Not a bad set up. The only thing I really hate about this coffee shop is all the hipsters. What the hell are they thinking? I would love to see a picture of a hipster from ten years ago. Were they the kids that were all in love with Jay-Z and Eminem? And where do they expect to go in life with holes in their ears as big as a pop can? And don't even get me started on skinny jeans. God in HEAVEN!
I have begun to pay back the greek organization that I had the pleasure of being associated with in College. it's only about two years overdue, but what can I say....I'm slow.
I think the best two thing about this week both happened on Friday. First, I went back to Midland to talk to Dr. Staley's Cultural Minorities class about living with "the gay" and what that means in NE and at Midland and in Fremont. It was a really enjoyable class. There was good questions from both the professor and the students, and the dialog was both witty and informative. I really wish I could do it more ofter. Truthfully. I think I broke a lot of barriers today. There are some people that don't understand that being gay and being a social pariah are not mutually exclusive. I live my life the best way I know how and I do it with grace and dignity and a lot of humor. (I sound like I'm living with AIDS or something, jeez). The point is, I like being gay. I like being who I am. I like making asshole straight boys feel uncomfortable and dirty.
Also on Friday, I got another tattoo. It's a really nice compass rose on my chest.
So what do we think? I think it's fantastic. I love the fact that it turned out so bad ass. I was a little wary, but it all turned into a nice experience. And Jamie and Jay were there to witness. Then we went and had shots and listened to the rain fall and the thunder rumble. It was a beautiful night on Friday. I wish I had a date so I could make an excuse to make out. Meh.
This whole post is terribly unlibrarian like and I apologize for that.You get something from the field soon. I promise.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The two websites I have chosen to review are LibraryThing and Internet Library for Librarians. LibraryThing can be found at http://www.librarything.com/. Internet Library for Librarians can be found at http://www.itcompany.com/inforetriever/index.htm. LibraryThing is a social cataloging site that allows users to compile their personal libraries onto the site and share them with other users. Users can tag their books with keywords so that other users can find similar titles. For instance, tagging the novel Twilight with keywords like “teens” and “love” and “vampires” will link to books like Interview with the Vampire and Romeo and Juliet depending on which tag being searched. Internet Library for Librarians is a virtual hub of information for librarians. With subheadings like “descriptive cataloging,” “authority maintenance,” “MARC formats,” “meta-data,” and “OPACs” this site gives details on how the operations of a library work and links to helpful sites like MARC, AARC2, and RDA.
The criteria I used to evaluate the websites were twofold. Firstly, the site had to be easy to navigate. LibraryThing was not only extremely easy to maneuver through; it also came with a guided tour in case something eluded the user. Internet library for librarians had all of the links to the proper pages right at the top of the page. There was no searching though different links to find the information needed. It was all right there at the start. Both sites were laid out in a professional manner with link to contact site administrators with more information or assistance. The second piece of criteria I used to evaluate the sites was the level of detail that each site went into as far as the information it was trying to present. For the Internet library for librarians site, the site gets a gold star. The amount of information that site provides is almost too much. When going back to the parent site, there is information on Administration, Youth Services, and other parts of library service. As far as cataloging goes, the site explains what the issue is for the individual links and then provides links to the respective site on the World Wide Web. LibraryThing, being less formal, was also informative with its social aspects. I enjoyed being able to browse by tag and being able to look at an individual users library. LibraryThing also allows users to export their library to other sites, making it portable and accessible.
As far as my reasoning and use of the sites go, there are a few simple answers. I chose LibraryThing and Internet Library for librarians because both sites are different aspects of the cataloging phenomenon. LibraryThing dives into the Web 2.0 aspects of cataloging and social networking, allowing users to comment on each other’s collections and share ideas and reviews and personal connections to the books. Internet Library for librarians is the opposite, focusing on the purely detailed aspects of cataloging. Links to RDA and AACR2 and explanations of descriptive cataloging and OPACs and MARC and meta-data are all very un-Web 2.0, however, they are important to the librarian in search for help in cataloging books or other materials. My use of LibraryThing has already begun. I have begun cataloging my personal library with some success and begun to connect with other users about my graphic novel habit and my love of American literature. Internet Library for Librarians will be helpful for a search of general catalog topics. If I did not have access to the links provided on Blackboard of this class, then Internet Library would be the place to find the necessary information. It’s been bookmarked on my computer in preparation for the day the Blackboard site goes down at the end of the semester. I’m not sure how often I’ll use it, but it’ll be nice to know it’s there for me to access if I need it.
The criteria I used to evaluate the websites were twofold. Firstly, the site had to be easy to navigate. LibraryThing was not only extremely easy to maneuver through; it also came with a guided tour in case something eluded the user. Internet library for librarians had all of the links to the proper pages right at the top of the page. There was no searching though different links to find the information needed. It was all right there at the start. Both sites were laid out in a professional manner with link to contact site administrators with more information or assistance. The second piece of criteria I used to evaluate the sites was the level of detail that each site went into as far as the information it was trying to present. For the Internet library for librarians site, the site gets a gold star. The amount of information that site provides is almost too much. When going back to the parent site, there is information on Administration, Youth Services, and other parts of library service. As far as cataloging goes, the site explains what the issue is for the individual links and then provides links to the respective site on the World Wide Web. LibraryThing, being less formal, was also informative with its social aspects. I enjoyed being able to browse by tag and being able to look at an individual users library. LibraryThing also allows users to export their library to other sites, making it portable and accessible.
As far as my reasoning and use of the sites go, there are a few simple answers. I chose LibraryThing and Internet Library for librarians because both sites are different aspects of the cataloging phenomenon. LibraryThing dives into the Web 2.0 aspects of cataloging and social networking, allowing users to comment on each other’s collections and share ideas and reviews and personal connections to the books. Internet Library for librarians is the opposite, focusing on the purely detailed aspects of cataloging. Links to RDA and AACR2 and explanations of descriptive cataloging and OPACs and MARC and meta-data are all very un-Web 2.0, however, they are important to the librarian in search for help in cataloging books or other materials. My use of LibraryThing has already begun. I have begun cataloging my personal library with some success and begun to connect with other users about my graphic novel habit and my love of American literature. Internet Library for Librarians will be helpful for a search of general catalog topics. If I did not have access to the links provided on Blackboard of this class, then Internet Library would be the place to find the necessary information. It’s been bookmarked on my computer in preparation for the day the Blackboard site goes down at the end of the semester. I’m not sure how often I’ll use it, but it’ll be nice to know it’s there for me to access if I need it.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Homework is coming!
Hey all!
Did you know that Homework is essential for passing grad school? YEAH!
I have to do it right now in fact. I'm going to just shoot this quick update. Then when I'm done writing my paper I'll post my paper here. That way you can all see what I'm learning. Great tool the internet, yes?
Did you know that Homework is essential for passing grad school? YEAH!
I have to do it right now in fact. I'm going to just shoot this quick update. Then when I'm done writing my paper I'll post my paper here. That way you can all see what I'm learning. Great tool the internet, yes?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Today I learned today that there are more library blogs and websites than I had ever imagined. Lots and lots and lots of them. I'm looking for sites on cataloging at the moment. Now, to preface this, I hate cataloging. I really really do. It's one of the most boring things that I can think of in the history of librarianship. It's probably one of the most important things that a library can do because it's how you find stuff, but the actual work of it SUCKS!
Now on with the story. Librarything.com and Librarything.com/forlibraries are two really cool parts of a website that is so into Web 2.0 that it's almost 3. The site allows you to catalog your own library collectiong and share it with other users. These users can tag your books with words and phrases that then incorporate them into a "tagged" search. This allows you to search for something like "confused identity" and come up with all sorts of titles that have "confused identity" as the tag. It's quite a beautiful piece of technology.
Now on with the story. Librarything.com and Librarything.com/forlibraries are two really cool parts of a website that is so into Web 2.0 that it's almost 3. The site allows you to catalog your own library collectiong and share it with other users. These users can tag your books with words and phrases that then incorporate them into a "tagged" search. This allows you to search for something like "confused identity" and come up with all sorts of titles that have "confused identity" as the tag. It's quite a beautiful piece of technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
